About 10 years ago, IBM used to use the 9.0.0.0/8 space in basically exactly the same way as one would use 10.0.0.0/8, for internal-only networking. Each workstation got its own 9.x.x.x IP, but it wasn't routable from outside. I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it.
Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
111–120 of 208 posts
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#112> [...] if you want to get a /24 block from RIPE NCC when you sign up as a member, then you are currently looking at a 2 month wait for a recycled IPv4 /24 block. That's a rather optimistic view of the situation. The next member who will get a block has already been waiting for 2 months and it's unclear when they will get one. It stands to reason that members applying now wold have to wait (potentially significantly)…
Some nice data on the prices of IPv4 addresses: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that be relevant here (or sibling comment about Apple)? Last I checked except for 9.9.9.0/24 (to quad9) IBM is indeed the assignee for 9.0.0.0/8 from back in 1992. Apple got 17.0.0.0/8 back in 1990. Back in the day a lot of big entities got whole /8 blocks (including of course a lot of the USG but private corps as well). Many of them are still around and fully active, while others are defunct (Halliburton h…
But the point is that they're not using it. If it's not addressable from the internet, why not use 10.0.0.0/8 instead?
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#114Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#115I don't understand why was the next version of IP not just identical to IPv4 but with more bits in address space? Were they trying to do too many things at once in the 90's?
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#116US Department of Defense has 14 /8 blocks. You'd have to wonder what they do with that large number of public IPs. Sure, some companies have large blocks but that's nothing compared to that.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#117> [...] if you want to get a /24 block from RIPE NCC when you sign up as a member, then you are currently looking at a 2 month wait for a recycled IPv4 /24 block. That's a rather optimistic view of the situation. The next member who will get a block has already been waiting for 2 months and it's unclear when they will get one. It stands to reason that members applying now wold have to wait (potentially significantly)…
I applied in October last year, and at that time the waiting list was zero days, so I received our /24 instantaneously. Some nice data on the prices of IPv4 addresses: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#118I don't understand why was the next version of IP not just identical to IPv4 but with more bits in address space? Were they trying to do too many things at once in the 90's?
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#119About 10 years ago, IBM used to use the 9.0.0.0/8 space in basically exactly the same way as one would use 10.0.0.0/8, for internal-only networking. Each workstation got its own 9.x.x.x IP, but it wasn't routable from outside. I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it.
Why would that be relevant here (or sibling comment about Apple)? Last I checked except for 9.9.9.0/24 (to quad9) IBM is indeed the assignee for 9.0.0.0/8 from back in 1992. Apple got 17.0.0.0/8 back in 1990. Back in the day a lot of big entities got whole /8 blocks (including of course a lot of the USG but private corps as well). Many of them are still around and fully active, while others are defunct (Halliburton h…
Neither Apple, not IBM, actually need that many publicly useful set of IPs. IBM would be smart to sell them off. Apple is probably going to sit on them. (I used to work at IBM and that 9 block was very confusing to me, considering that IBM isn't even that big of a DC operator these days)
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the point is that they're not using it. If it's not addressable from the internet, why not use 10.0.0.0/8 instead?
For some applications, it's valuable to have globally-unique addresses even if they're not (all) broadly accessible from the open Internet. For example, if you're building private links between networks which don't share an authority for distributing private network addresses (they're administered by different companies or organizations perhaps). I don't know how common this is anymore, but I've seen it in the past.